london moves east: how the olympics impacts host communities

London Moves East: How the Olympics Impacts Host Communities BY AARON BONSU

ADVISOR • Dr. Alex Perullo EDITORIAL REVIEWER • Dr. Richard Holtzman _________________________________________________________________________________________ Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with honors in the Bryant University Honors Program DECEMBER 2019

London Moves East: How the Olympics

Impacts Host Communities

The Bryant University Honors Program

Honors Thesis

Student’s Name: Aaron Bonsu

Faculty Advisor: Professor Alex Perullo

December 2019

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2

The Olympic Games and Legacy .......................................................................................... 3

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5

Why a London Case Study? .................................................................................................. 5

Why a Provisional Coding Study? ........................................................................................ 6

Intangible and Tangible Legacies ......................................................................................... 8

Selective and Universal Legacies........................................................................................ 10

Candidature File Analysis ....................................................................................................... 12

Tangible Traits of the Bid ................................................................................................... 13

Intangible Traits of the Bid ................................................................................................. 18

Post-Games Analysis .............................................................................................................. 21

Elitist Expansion of London ............................................................................................... 22

Governments’ Broad Brushes ............................................................................................. 28

Success of the Economic Interests ...................................................................................... 32

Universal Discussions ......................................................................................................... 34

Other Games Analysis............................................................................................................. 35

Olympics “Before” Legacy: The 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver ................................. 35

Olympics of the Future: Paris and Los Angeles’ Tangibility ............................................. 38

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 42

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix A – List of Sources Used for London Post-Games Analysis ............................. 46

References ............................................................................................................................... 48

Works Consulted ..................................................................................................................... 51

London Moves East: How the Olympics Impacts Host Communities

Honors Thesis for Aaron Bonsu

- 1 -

ABSTRACT

While the Olympics desire to remake its host communities through economic and housing

reform to the benefit of local people, its housing legacy does not adequately serve the

intended communities. By using a case study approach, the London 2012 Olympic Games

was analyzed through a provisional codebook created based off of academic research on the

concept of legacy and the Olympics. In this analysis, the London 2012 Games were found as

not serving the needs of the local population. While there is a strong commitment to creating a

tangible, impactful legacy, a lack of government focus on delivering public goods like

affordable housing, the strong power of business interests, and the move of powerful entities

that is forcing out impoverished local people, are all evident through the Games’ selective

housing legacy. Traits found in the London Games also appear in the Vancouver 2010 and

Paris 2024 Olympics, making this a significant trend and can be applied to other city projects

centered around sport.



- 2 -

INTRODUCTION

The Olympic Games are, at its core, a festival. A fortnight carnival of sport that is surrounded

by the passion, fervor, and attention of a global audience. Yet, much like any party, there are

great costs. Olympic Games, at their core, are expensive. Whether it is any economic gain

being, “swallowed by cost overruns,” or just sheer staggering expenses to construct the

venues, the Olympics have staggering consequences (Zirin 2016, 173). The last six Olympics

held in North American or western European countries had costs above $2 billion (Baade and

Matheson 2016). The British Columbian government spent approximately one billion

Canadian dollars on hosting the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (Matas 2010). In the United

Kingdom, public sector funding accounted for almost nine billion British pounds of

expenditure for the London 2012 Summer Olympics (Rogers 2012). In short, the

consequences of hosting the Olympics are often left to governments, putting the public’s

money at risk. Governments, already gambling with the public purse, make substantial

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Atlanta 1996 Salt Lake City2002

Athens 2004 Torino 2006 Vancouver2010

London 2012

Spen

din

g in

Bill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs (

20

15

)

Recent North America and Western European Olympic Hosts -Total Spending in Billions (2015 USD)

Figure 1 – The costs of the Olympics in the last five hosts of the event in North American and

western European cities (Baade and Matheson 2016).



- 3 -

commitments to justify hosting the Olympics. Two key promises made are that the Games

will initiate change or make change occur faster and that the housing situation will improve

through higher real estate prices (Zimbalist 2016, 50-51). Sometimes, governments guarantee

affordable housing, as evident by what was left after the London 2012 Olympics.

What was left after, known as the legacy, is the cornerstone of any Olympic future. It is all the

features of an Olympics that remain a part of the community, and in many cases, are intended

to shape a neighborhood’s future. Even with this intent, however; legacy and its relationship

with the communities that are supposed to be helped appears to be fragmented. This situation

produces a sentiment that while the Olympics desires to remake its host communities through

economic and housing reform that benefits local people, its housing legacy does not

adequately serve the intended communities.

This concept of the Olympics, its legacy, and whether its housing legacy is actually serving

the intended community is examined in this research through a case study of the London 2012

Olympics. The Games’ Olympic Park – located in one of the poorest and most deprived areas

in the United Kingdom at the time of the bid – aimed to reform the community for the better.

Yet, whether that legacy achieved the goal of serving the host community is imperative to

understand the importance of the Olympics to urban reform in London and the Games as a

mechanism for change through its legacy. In the case of the London 2012 Olympic Games,

the legacy has not provided substantial benefits to local people. A lack of government focus

on delivering public goods like affordable housing, the strong power of business interests, and

the move of powerful entities that is forcing out impoverished local people are all evident

through the Games’ housing legacy. The significant consequence of this type of legacy, along

with the traits, are also apparent in the Vancouver 2010 and Paris 2024 Olympics. This leaves

substantive concerns for the structure of the Games as a political policy.

The Olympic Games and Legacy

Legacies in a sports mega-events context, are seen as, “… At its root an ideological concept –

it is constructed as a vision of what can happen in the future,” with powerful interests like

politicians and IOC members stating that the event will tie into the development of a city in

order to justify the price tag attached (Horne and Whannel 2016, 38-39). The London 2012



- 4 -

winning bid is vital to understanding the legacy concept because it was the first Olympics to

have the concept as a significant part to the bidding process (Horne 2016). This is because of

the International Olympic Committee including an emphasis of creating legacy in its charter

in 2002 (Tomlinson 2014). From the IOC’s perspective, legacy has become a concept of

utmost importance to justify the existence of the games. In order to protect the commercial

interests, justify the high costs of hosting, and maintaining the values of the Olympics as a

tool for equality and peace, the idea of legacy has been a feature of the IOC’s culture since the

early 1990s, leading to the formal adoption in 2002 (Poynter 2016, 27).

The concept of legacy and the Olympics, while formally introduced with London and hinted

at throughout the nineties by the IOC, does not start with the 2012 games. Cities, since the

Melbourne Olympics in 1956, have used language that employ legacy tropes such as the

games having a long-term service to the city in order to justify hosting the event (Tomlinson

2014). Key throughout the transition of legacy language in the Olympics is the long-term

strategy of the Olympic Village. Cities have been forced to figure out what to do with the

Olympic Village since the first permanent site was built for the Helsinki Games in 1952 –

which was converted into a residential district (Bernstock 2014, 5). The long-term strategy of

the Olympic Village has only become more elaborate as legacy has become a preeminent

feature of Olympic bids. This parallel increase between long-term strategy of the Olympic

Village and legacy is also prominent due to the Games becoming more closely tied to urban

regeneration and transformation projects of cities, especially since the Barcelona Games in

1992 (Bernstock 2016, 5).

This idea of a legacy based upon transformation projects formed a significant part of the

London 2012 bidding process. Chairman of the London Organizing Committee for the

Olympic Games (LOCOG), Sebastian Coe, saw legacy as crucial to the games, calling it,

“Probably nine-tenths of what this process is about, not just 16 days of Olympic sport,”

(Horne and Whannel 2016, 38). Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, saw London’s bid

as being built on, “a special Olympic vision. A vision of an Olympic Games that would not

only be a celebration of sport but a force for regeneration,” asserting the idea that the

government saw the legacy of the games as wholesale change (Lindsay 2014, 18). The



- 5 -

conflation of concepts between the long-term strategy, overall legacy, and use of the games to

overhaul a neighborhood are evident throughout the modern history of the Olympic Games

and form the base of any conversation about the London Olympics.

METHODOLOGY

Why a London Case Study?

While legacies of any Olympics are important, the legacy of the London Olympics carries an

even greater weight. Due to London’s position as the first to prioritize legacy – along with the

IOC requirements to prioritize it – some scholars consider the London Games to be the first

legacy Games (Horne and Whannel 2016, 39). This is reinforced since the bidding cities for

the 2012 Games were the first, “…To be invited to place legacy concerns at the heart of their

bid,” (Tomlinson 2014). The importance of London to legacy is not just from scholars, but

from other Olympic organizing committees as well. Tony Estanguet, co-chair for the Paris

2024 Olympic bid, noted how London was a model, and describing how the Parisian

committee, “…Looked at the success of the games in London,” and the, “…Fact that London

succeeded in leaving a strong legacy,” (Alexander-Webber 2017). This consistency signifies

how much of a turning point the London Olympics are from a legacy perspective, and a key to

understanding the concept and value of legacy for the Olympic movement in general.

The case study approach is thoroughly apt for this thesis because of its emphasis on

qualitative data such as interviews, records, and current writing on a group as a whole (“Case

Studies” 2019). This is necessary in a thesis such as this because almost all of the information

available on housing and legacy is qualitative data, ranging from the concerns of people over

how the Olympics will impact them to government documents from the London government

on the progress made to change east London. Such a justification is confirmed because the

intention of the project is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the London Olympics

housing and legacy process in the same way a case study does through a “thick description,

which involves an in-depth description of the entity being evaluated, the circumstances under

which it is used, the characteristics of the people involved in it, and the nature of the

community in which it is located,” (“Case Studies” 2019).



- 6 -

A case study is not only the best way to examine this thesis, it is necessary to allow the reader

to examine the dynamics of the London Games before understanding any possible patterns.

Such creation of understanding of the dynamics may not create a concrete generalization, but

as Bent Flyvbjerg discussed, “A purely descriptive, phenomenological case study without any

attempt to generalize can certainly be of value in this process (to gain knowledge) and has

often helped cut a path toward scientific innovation,” (2006, 227). For this thesis, that path

towards such innovation is not just to possibly improve Olympic research, but to inform,

present, and connect the public with trends that appear apparent in the modern Olympics.

Why a Provisional Coding Study?

In order to analyze the London Olympics, I coded the London 2012 Candidature File’s

Concept and Legacy along with Olympic Village section. The Candidature Files, the business

plans of the Olympic Games, explain to the International Olympic Committee about a bidding

city’s plans. The purpose, intent, and schemes that each bidding city will do if they receive the

opportunity to host the Olympic Games are presented in a document hundreds of pages long.

The approach for analyzing the text, coding, involves, “labels that assign symbolic meaning to

the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study,” (Miles et al. 2014, 71).

Coding is also one of two frameworks that are generally used for data analysis in case studies

(“Case Studies” 2019). The aim for this project’s use with coding is to gather and categorize

data in order to determine recurring patterns. Yet, the structure of a provisional coding study

provides an important feature. Provisional coding, “begins with a ‘start list” of researcher-

generated codes, based on what preparatory investigation suggest might appear in the data

before they are collected and analyzed,” (Miles et al. 2014, 77). In this thesis, that start list is

established by the descriptions from John Horne about the types of legacies – tangible,

intangible, selective, and universal (2016).

The coding categories involved an overall section, the four types of legacies – tangible,

intangible, selective, and universal – but each document was analyzed based on codes formed

by the descriptions provided to each of the legacy types – such as economic performance

signifying tangible legacy. These concepts will be discussed in the subsections on legacy. By

breaking down the definitions of legacies by Horne into key terms, I was able to begin an



- 7 -

approach that analyzed phrases, words, and sentences that correspond to each of the codes. By

going with a provision coding approach, the codebook – the set of rules determining what is

coded and how it is coded – also had a stronger value to it. The code isn’t created solely based

upon my ideas of legacy but on an assessment of previous arguments and research into

legacy. This makes this project supported and built on previous research on Olympic legacy.

Provisional coding also carries an even more important value to this thesis. Case studies do

occasionally run into issues, with people often presenting misconceptions or arguments that

case studies are more prone to confirmation bias and that they are more useful for,

“generating hypotheses,” while other methods are more appropriate for the latter stages of the

research process (Flyvberg 2006, 221). By going with a provisional coding scheme, I’m

tackling confirmation bias since the code I am basing my analysis on involves previous

research. This removes myself and my presumptions out of the product as well as being able

to assess the quality of the terms used by previous scholars.

The documents used for this thesis fall under two categories, Candidature File and post-

Games documents. The Candidature File, as explained in the legacy section, is the business

plan of the Olympic Games. Its inclusion is necessary to detail the bidding process and the

intention of legacy at the time of appeal to the International Olympic Committee. The post-

Games documents assess what happened after the Games in 2012. For this thesis, I analyzed

twenty documents ranging from news articles, government reports, and sections from books

to assess trends.

While the London Games are the emphasis of this thesis, I also examined three other

Olympics – the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games, Paris 2024 Summer Games, and the Los

Angeles 2028 Summer Games – on a smaller scale to assess whether the trends that are

apparent in the London bid are found as well in the other three Games. To examine the two

sections of the Candidature File and the post-Games documents and articles over the way that

they discuss legacy, I have used John Horne’s argument on legacies in relation to their

political implications, in that they can be intangible or tangible along with being selective and

universal (Horne and Whannel 2016, 39).



- 8 -

Intangible and Tangible Legacies

Intangible legacies emphasize, “…popular memories, evocations and analyses of specific

moments and incidents associated with an event,” while the tangible legacies focus on,

“…Substantial and long standing changes to the urban infrastructure,” along with changes to

the, “economic performance of the city or nation,” (Horne 2016; Horne and Whannel 2016,

39).

Intangible legacies aim to leave a level of emotion and feeling with their audience. The

excitement of the Games, the anticipation of the Games, or the comfort of the apartments in

the Olympic Village are examples of intangible emotions. They also include major events,

such as references to the Olympic Games itself. Tangible legacies emphasize the building and

economic features of what is left after the Games. It takes a look at the infrastructure planned

and the economic change planned.

In analyzing, I created a provisional coding scheme, based on the research and argument

presented by Horne, to determine the tangible features presented in the candidature file and

how present they are. These traits include any signifying of substantial and long-standing

changes – such as legacy, events occurring after the games, and regeneration. Another code is

Figure 2 – Tangible and Intangible Legacy codebook



- 9 -

any mention of urban-related words – such as city, metropolis, or pronouns relating to the

community like London, East London, Stratford, or the Lower Lea Valley. Two other codes

are any mentions of material infrastructure being built and any mention of economic change

that will occur due to the Olympics. In contrast, intangible legacies are based on two subjects:

popular memories and evocation – examining if there is a desire to leave any emotion such as

a feel, or leave a lasting image – and specific moments and incidents – examining if there is

mention of hypothetical or actual events, including any references to the Games themselves

such as the “After the Games,” or references to a future 100 meter race.

Figure 3 – Tangible and Intangible coding example as applied to the London 2012

Candidature File.



- 10 -

Selective and Universal Legacies

Selective legacies emphasize being, “Particular, individualist, and elitist, and tend to serve

interests of those dominating powerful political and economic positions in society,” (Horne

2016). In contrast, universal legacies emphasize being, “Communal, collectivist, and

inherently democratic, available to all by virtue of being made freely accessible,” (Horne

2016). Selective legacies, in essence, emphasize individualistic tendencies and those who are

already in power. Universal legacies look more into the community and democratic values

that are presented in the legacy. When coding, selectivity included a code on powerful

political interests – such as mentioning government departments, officials, or objectives of the

government – and powerful economic interests – such as mention private companies that

would have a stake in the Olympics or opportunities that would interest powerful economic

entities. Other codes include elitist, which aims to look at notions of wealth along with a

particular and individualistic category that looks into whether there is an emphasis on people

as just their self, a division of people, or a lack of community emphasis. Universal concepts

that were coded include a communal, collectivist category that looks into giving priority to

groups over individuals, the notion of community, or the notion of sharing between people, a

Figure 4 – Selective and Universal Legacy codebook



- 11 -

democratic code looking for concepts synonymous with democracy like voting, social

equality, and a freely accessible code, which runs in tandem with democracy by looking into

the freedom and accessibility examined by the bid.

While I did note them when analyzing the London 2012 candidature file, selective and

universal legacies are not seen as barometers for assessing bid process documents. Instead,

they are subjects to be assessed in succession to the planning, as evident by Horne stating that

the problem for most major sporting events is that, “They largely generate tangible legacies

that are selective and intangible legacies that are universal,” (2016). This idea is evident in

other research, into how the organizers, namely LOCOG emphasized its bid, with a, “..matrix

of legacy, regeneration, and community,” that acknowledges the selective/universal aspects of

the construction, are employed to describe the tangible/intangible discussion of the bid, such

as how Francesca Weber-Newth calls the adiZones – an infrastructural legacy of mini parks in

East London – as, “…Part of this tangible ‘community legacy’,” (2014).

In keeping with this pattern of research on legacy and descriptions for bids during research,

the analysis of candidature file documents will emphasize an analysis of the tangibility but

will discuss certain selective and universal attributes presented if they are correlated to

Figure 5 – Rules applied to how the tangible, intangible, selective, and universal legacies

would be used to engage with the texts during analysis.



- 12 -

determining how tangible the bid intended to be. For the post-Games analysis, the selectivity

will be the emphasis on the analysis, but will discuss certain tangible attributes if they are

related to how selective the legacy is. This delineation of focus is also key to looking into the

other Games. Since the Vancouver 2010 Games already occured, it is the only one that I

looked at both the candidature file and did a condensed post-Games textual analysis –

therefore looking into both tangibility and selectivity. In contrast, the Paris 2024 and Los

Angeles 2028 Olympic Games were used to solely for the purpose to compare the candidature

files’ tangibility, but with the possibility to assess whether their tangible similarities could

produce similar outcomes found in London.

CANDIDATURE FILE ANALYSIS

Overall, the London 2012 candidature file shows itself to be highly tangible, reflecting an

intention to remake the community through economic and housing reform. Its tangible traits,

however, do not mean that it is vacant of intangible traits. While the tangible traits are used to

describe the community’s economic and housing reform along with an intention for long term

127

101

228

101

65

166

NUMBER OF A PPEA RA NCES (LEGA CY)

NUMBER OF A PPEA RA NCES (V ILLA GE)

CA ND ID A TURE F ILE TOTA LS

Tangible Intangible

Figure 6 – Tangible and Intangible coding results in the Legacy and Games Concept section

of the London 2012 Candidature File (left), the Olympic Village section (middle), and the two

sections combined (right).



- 13 -

benefits and major infrastructure, other sectors of the candidature file evoke emotions that are

exhibited in intangible legacies. Sections that focus on describing the games themselves, the

games reputation if they are held in London, the experience and accommodation of athletes

for the Olympics and Paralympics, the International Olympic Committee, and the design of

the buildings all emphasize intangible qualities of producing feeling upon athletes, organizers,

spectators, and powerful interests.

Tangible Traits of the Bid

The most consistent appearance of tangible traits is found within discussions over the future

and the community of East London impacted. In the “Benefiting the Community Through

Regeneration” subsection, the London organizing committee profusely makes a point of its

long-term, substantial, urban, infrastructural change intention. It uses four different wording

to describe the urban regions directly impacted – Lower Lea Valley, Lea Valley, East London,

and London – to display a commitment to the area, explicitly mentions the intention for

economic change, and bombards the International Olympic Committee with their commitment

to change with mentions of regeneration, legacy, and that the Park, and therefore the games,

will lead to profound change, (“Candidate File” 2004, 19). The messaging – from a tangible

perspective – is clear with intent throughout the candidature file. Whether it reaffirms the

bid’s commitment to infrastructure by stating that the “Olympic Park will transform 200

hectares of degraded land into a magnificent new legacy park,” confirms the long term and

substantial commitments by using language like, “fundamental improvements,” describing the

games as a, “catalyst for change,” or noting that hosting the games would be integral to the

future plan of London as a city, the tying together of the games and wholesale infrastructural

change is almost inseparable (“Candidate File” 2004, 23, 207).

This inseparability between the games and infrastructural change is a common theme through

the Concept and Legacy and Olympic Village volumes. The messaging of major change is

crucial to the candidature file as it attempts to garner legitimacy of the project as a tool for

city development. The document does this by calling the Olympic Village as a way to help the

affordable housing crisis in London noting how it will, “not only help to meet these needs but

will accelerate the delivery of these homes,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 207). Through using the



- 14 -

word accelerate, the candidature file asserts that not only will the games – through the

Olympic Village – bring significant change, it will bring that change at a faster pace

compared to any other project would to create homes.

Such messaging, with the same rationale of corralling legitimacy, is apparent throughout the

bid’s legacy and housing sections. When discussing the legacy for the community’s disabled,

the Games were seen as a way to, “…Accelerate the development of accessible facilities for

disabled people,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 23). When discussing the Games’ relationship with

London’s long-term planning, the candidature file states that, “Without the Games, change

would still happen, but it would be slower, more incremental and less ambitious from a

sporting, cultural and environmental perspective,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 23). When the

document discusses the construction of venues, it states that, “Given the plans for

regeneration in this part of London, it represents a once in a lifetime opportunity to create the

perfect venue for athletes, officials, and spectators alike,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 19). Three

times more, the document asserts its chops of being a better option over any other plan of

change by not only assessing the pace of change, but the level of change as well. It is the

Olympics, and only this Olympics, that can ensure change that is quick and change that is

profound to the communities of East London.

This combination of pace of change, level of change, and timeliness allows for the organizers

to argue that hosting the Games is a need, not a want. A desire to have the Games becomes

necessary in order to upgrade the community or the area will continue to fall by the wayside –

an act of desperation be it real or exaggerated. While the legacy presented is tangible through

its material construction, the intangible desire of wanting to host the Olympics compounds the

legacy as it forces construction that would occur – even if London is not selected – to have a

hard timetable of 2012 in order to ensure the “most profound” change. In doing this,

vernacular normally left for politicians on the campaign trail are in full voice in justifying the

Olympic project as a cause worthy of the high expenses.



- 15 -

One other key feature of the tangibility presented is the dedication to discussing economic

changes to east London. An entire subsection, “A Legacy for the Economy” was dedicated to

economic change related to the games, including that the biggest economic legacy being,

“…The creation of wider employment opportunities and improvements in the education, skills

and knowledge of the local labour force in an area of very high unemployment,” and that

those skills will lead to the community having, “…A stake in the economic growth of their

region and begin to break the cycle of deprivation in the area,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 25).

The economic prosperity concepts present in the candidature file emphasizes the two

pathways of employment and turning around the economic standing of the community

presented in the economic legacy section throughout the document. Employment is discussed

with the Olympic Park providing job opportunities and “Opening up opportunities for

education, cultural and skills development and jobs…” (“Candidate File” 2004, 23, 19).

The economic standing is also a common mention as it is discussed through a justification of

the Games as stimulating, “a vital economic regeneration programme in London’s poorest and

most disadvantaged area,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 23). What unites the economic concepts

provided is that they all have a common focus to help those who currently live in the

community and lift them up into a better position. Yet, one other facet of economic change is

the emphasis on investment and business change. The London Plan, to which the Games are

Figure 7 – The Three Rule Justification on change is a key feature of the Games and its

concept for London



- 16 -

considered to be a major part of, “focuses investment and growth in the east of the city,” such

as the Olympic site, the Games were seen as an added feature of, “already programmed

infrastructure investment,” and this comment on in progress infrastructure is key to the

messaging in the Olympic Village (“Candidate File” 2004, 23). While the Concept and

Legacy volume emphasized economic reform for the community, the village’s economic

reform keyed into the creation of new business locations, highlighting the Stratford City

development that would include new shopping, business, and leisure facilities (“Candidate

File” 2004, 197, 201). The document also emphasized the business future of Stratford, stating

how the London Plan called for the area to be, “…A mixed use European business quarter for

the city,” and then mentioning that it will be home to a significant amount of housing

(“Candidate File” 2004, 209). This emphasis on business is also highlighted by the mention of

how restaurants and cafes on the Athletes Boulevard will be turned into restaurants and shops

post-Games (“Candidate File” 2004, 231).

Another profound tool of employed by the candidature file is the language of tying the Games

to post-Games events and change. The candidature file accomplishes this through two ways:

legacy and regeneration.

Legacy, the most common of the phrases, makes sense for it be consistently mentioned in the

candidature file. It is the title of the first volume, it is seen throughout the history of the

games, and London is the first games that states that legacy is at the forefront of the project.

Within the body of the Candidature File, it appears almost ten times in the Concept and

Legacy volume, seven times in the Olympic Village volume, in captions for diagrams and

photos more than three times, and is the title of six sections between the two volumes

(“Candidate File” 2004). The messaging is clear, that the Games, if held in London, will

follow the IOC’s push for legacy and leave a tremendous effect on the east London

community hosting the Olympics. That legacy, however, gets defined by a word used just as

often as legacy for the London bid – regeneration.

To regenerate an area, an action that brings new wealth of opportunities and revitalizes a

community, is the justification of the games that holds the entire bid’s tangibility together.

The pace of change, the level of change, the timeliness, the major infrastructure, the urban



- 17 -

focus, and the economic reform all are held together because the games are perceived to be a

tool for community revival. This idea is presented from the start with a vision that includes a

theme of, “Benefiting the community through regeneration,” but is carried on throughout the

document (“Candidate File” 2004, 17). The legacy is tied with regeneration because the long-

lasting legacy of hosting the Olympics is perceived to be, “… The regeneration of an entire

community of the direct benefit of everyone who lives there, (“Candidate File” 2004, 19). The

government considers the games to be crucial because it will help, “…Regeneration in east

London especially the Lea Valley, levering resources, spurring timely completion of already

programmed infrastructure investment and leaving a legacy to be valued by future

generations,” act as a, “…Wider catalyst for the regeneration of east London,” and a reflection

of the mayor’s plan to regenerate the hosting Stratford neighborhood (“Candidate File” 2004,

23, 207, 209).

Even when discussing the legacy and importance of the Olympic Village, it is the idea of the

Village – therefore the Games as well – acting as a force against the tides of downtrodden east

London, ready to be used as an example of government doing good for the people. The

Olympic Village is seen as a future, “landmark in urban regeneration,” an “ambitious

regeneration program,” and a “major regeneration project” all for the purpose of building up

the community (“Candidate File” 2004, 197, 201, 211, 213). Overall, regeneration appears six

times in the body of the Concept and Legacy volume, seven times in the Olympic Village

volume, is the caption for one photo, and is the title for one section (“Candidate File” 2004).

Also, in a text that is done in English and French – the IOC’s two official languages – the

cognate trait of regeneration as a word holds a great value as it remains consistent throughout

the text, even while legacy gets replaced.

For the London 2012 organizing interests, the key to their long-term planning is the word that

has long-term staying power in English and French. Regeneration functions as a symbol of the

legacy that they want to leave, the significant change that they want to achieve, and the

infrastructure that will be constructed to get them there and lead to the economic reform of

Stratford and all of East London. It is this word that forms the rationale of the Games as it

makes the Olympics a silver bullet for all of east London’s problems like an infomercial.



- 18 -

Economic failings, housing woes, and deprivation are supposed to be solved by a single

project that will remake a neighborhood because it will make the change faster and better than

any other hypothetical. Without creating the notion of regeneration, the infrastructure,

planning, the government interaction, long-term notions, and deadlines set by the desire to

host the Olympics that make up what regeneration means to this project are all moot.

Intangible Traits of the Bid

While the majority of the bid book focuses on creating a tangible legacy through the

regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley community, the intangible traits present and where they

concentrate provide a glimpse of how the bid aims to please the community and other

stakeholders differently. Few aspects of the candidature file explain its intangibleness like the

evocations used in relation to the International Olympic Committee. In the Concept and

Legacy volume, popular memories and evocating words occurred more than ten times, with

an intent on trying to make the Games have a feel to it. When describing the games, the

candidature file calls it an event to be “cherished” and that London will “protect and enhance

it,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 19). When discussing why London would be a great city to host

Figure 8 – All features of the London 2012 bid and legacy notions are tied to regeneration



- 19 -

the games for the IOC, the document discusses the city’s ability to, “create memorable

television images,” the city’s ability to deliver “pageantry with a contemporary flair, “calling

the city home to, “one of the most sophisticated marketing centres in the world,” and that

London is equipped to create, “excitement and spectacle of the Games,” (“Candidate File

2004, 19).

Overall, this section describes a scene that should only be matched by a parent and a

babysitter. Using words like cherish, protect, and enhance, the candidature file describes the

Games as the IOC’s child, meant to be guarded from harm and only London can adequately

do such a thing. The diction has a desire to evoke safety to the IOC, and that the organizers of

London are a safe pair of hands for their child. That safety is directly complemented by the

power of imagery. Using phrases like creating pageantry, flair, and sophisticated signifies that

the candidature file is attempting to present a posh feeling to the IOC. Not only will London

protect the Games from any disrespect, the enhancement will produce an aura of regality,

dignity, and good taste that only the British culture can provide. In essence, an Olympics that

looks posh and elite, one to which the IOC can be proud of. Two words in this section appear

to emphasize other features, namely how the excitement and spectacle of games will be,

“inspiring new Olympic devotees,” and “stimulating fresh interests in sport,” (“Candidate

File” 2004, 19). Yet, this hits the bottom line for the International Olympic Committee. By

arguing that a London games could produce this, the organizing interests are stating that a

London games will use higher viewership to get more people to pay attention to the Olympics

and the affiliated sports and to provide more people to profile at future Olympics to maintain

the pull factor of the Games across the world. The enhancement is not just so that the Games

look posh, the enhancement is for the Games to keep everything the IOC does in the future

afloat.

The emphasis on producing intangible legacies also comes into play in the image and

reputation subsection – a section to which sounds logical. Much like the protecting comments

in the IOC section, there is a clear emphasis on aligning the London Games with a system that

is seen as having a “strong and positive reputation,” by describing the management skills of

those in LOCOG as “strong,” (“Candidate File 2004, 25). For the organizers, calling



- 20 -

themselves strong while simultaneously calling the Games strong attempts to create a feeling

that they are both at the same level and the London committee is worthy of managing the

Olympic Games. A lot of the evocations presented in this section emphasize support, with

uses of words like, “momentum,” “build anticipation,” “excitement,” and describing street

designing for events as, “dramatic,” are all geared towards making people feel the

approaching Olympics as something to prepare, plan, and giddy about (“Candidate File 2004,

25). Without this level of consideration, the Games will become a place where people do not

care, and it is imperative for LOCOG to present the concept that it knows how to make people

care. Perhaps the most poignant evocation though is the contrast between most of the words in

the candidature file and the inclusion of “vigorous” to describe the press in London

(“Candidate File 2004, 27). While a lot of the words have positive connotations, the use of

vigorous has a stark turn, as if to warn the Olympic Committee about the dangers of the press

in London. Yet, the inclusion of the press is one of the most communal comments made in the

entire document, describing the tension that LOCOG expected between the Games and a press

that will seek and get information to publish.

There are no vigorous mentions, however, in the Olympic Village section, which reaffirms a

dedication to positive evocation. The aim of the Olympic Village ranges from feelings of

producing “surprise and delight” to making residents feel “comfort,” “freedom,” “enjoyment”

and “safety,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 205). The range is very little and focuses on producing

the best services and accommodations as if it was a hotel chain. The Olympic Village, from a

London bid perspective is expected to make residents feel right at home, and that is aimed

through making it as pleasant as it can be for athletes, the first residents of the Olympic

Village and to which the site will be originally designed for. The bid even explicitly states that

its aim is to make athletes feel at home as evident by a subheading in the subsection on

apartments titled “Ensuring home comforts” (“Candidate File” 2004, 215). Yet, throughout

the document, the Games emphasizes the comfort of the athletes, including mentioning that

LOCOG will consult athletes to ensure every apartment, “Is attractively and comfortably

furnished for the comfort and convenience of its residents,” even though at this point, the

residents that only have to be pleased are the athletes while the future long term residents will

be employed in a later process (“Candidate File” 2004, 215).



- 21 -

POST-GAMES ANALYSIS

After reading and coding twenty unique sources – see appendix A for list of sources – from

the London and British governments, news articles, and academic research, the overwhelming

consensus is that the current legacy of the London 2012 games is selective and not universal.

Eighteen of the twenty articles were found to be selective; one was universal, and one other

had an equal amount. The selectivity of the legacy is found mostly in its elitist notions,

exhibiting how the games community-based housing legacy causes a tension between the

wealthy and poor and that the circumstances tend to favor the wealthy. This is in stark

contrast to the intent of the Games, however, to which among some of the tangible legacies

including economic reform for an area that was among the poorest and most disadvantaged in

Britain (“Candidate File” 2004, 23). In the case of the elitist notion, a common theme is not

just that the Lower Lea Valley community ended up becoming more expensive, but that the

area is becoming a part of the expanding center of London, and even politicians – though not

intentionally – are admitting to this phenomenon. Another prominent notion found in the

selectivity is the actions done by government affiliated institutions to the project.

While some of the government interests did exhibit democratic – and therefore universal –

traits, its emphasis on business interests and the consequences of the long-term infrastructure

mantra still being used cause issues in the effectiveness of the legacy. There is also a

significant amount of overlap between government and economic interests. Government

interests from national government affiliated corporations, municipal-controlled entities like

the London Legacy Development Corporation and developing agencies like the Olympic

Delivery Authority entangle themselves with business interests that have a strong stake in the

Olympic Village’s success. Together, the government and business interest create a situation

of complex organizational structuring and complementary support. The government and

economic interests, along with the elitism all confirm one pattern – the idea of London

moving east. The expansion of power from central London to east London. Yet, this

expansion is not empowering to those who already live in the community. Instead, it is a



- 22 -

relocation of those who do have power, forcing those who live in east London to consider

moving elsewhere. There are also some universal traits that are important to note when

looking through the legacy of the games.

Elitist Expansion of London

The Olympic Games were supposed to be the building up of the Lower Lea Valley

community with the sort of reform that even Lyndon B. Johnson could only dream off. The

Games were supposed to help lift the community from its desperate state and make it into a

more well-off place. The Olympics, on its face, did achieve this goal. It helped make the

Lower Lea Valley a more well-off place, but by bringing the well-off to the housing in and

around the Olympic Park along with making sure it is a well-off community due to housing

prices. The result – a London that is moving east but bringing the communities of central

London to the Olympic Park. The movement east comes with a caveat for the people of east

400

107

302

SELECTIVE UNIVERSAL UNIVERSAL WITH URBAN

Figure 9 – Selective and Universal coding results for the Post-Games Textual Analysis

(below). The third column – the universal section with the urban trait for tangibility, was

included to assess whether there were enough mentions of the community that would force

greater nuance to this section.



- 23 -

London. Instead of lifting up the communities there, the legacy of the Olympics brings

communities from central London to the Olympic Park.

At the heart of the elitist theme is the unaffordability and staggering increase of housing

prices in the East London host community since the Games. The unaffordability and increase

in prices are apparent throughout all homes – including those that were labelled as affordable

in the bid. Some people who lived in the Olympic Village could not continue to live there due

to the, “mushrooming costs,” “hiked rents,” creating a situation where people could not afford

any longer (Ponsford 2017).

Figure 10 – The gap between the median housing price in the four main boroughs that are

home to the Olympic Park and the Greater London median housing price. All statistics are

from December of that year, except for 2019, which is as of August (Bloomberg News

2019).

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Gap

to

Lo

nd

on

Med

ian

Year

Median Housing Price Gap Between London and Host Boroughs

Hackney Newham Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest



- 24 -

Most of the statistics surrounding housing in the Olympic Park fall under a common theme –

growing unaffordability. There are reports of affordable housing prices going up 25% in a

single year in the Olympic Park (Ponsford 2017). Housing prices in neighborhoods that

surround the Olympic Park were up 64% in the five years after 2012, and in the Olympic

Park, the pricing increase was higher than the London average (Tsang 2018; Ivey 2017). The

increase compared to other parts of London has special consequences because it means that

there is a level of catching up in housing prices that is occurring around the Olympic Village

to other parts of London. Since the Olympics in 2012, the separation between the median

London housing price and the median housing price of the neighborhoods surrounding has

narrowed with one neighborhood surpassing the London median (Bloomberg News 2019).

The separation, on a greater scale, however, indicates a more interesting story. While the

documents reflect a common theme of housing prices increasing in the years since the

Olympics, the gap between the London median and the host boroughs appears to be more a

return to levels evident before the Great Recession (Bloomberg News 2019). This

circumstance is best exhibited in Newham, where the gap to the London median contracted to

fourteen percent below the London median, a record in this decade, but was evident in several

years during the 2000s (Bloomberg News 2019). In other cases, growth reflects trends before

the games, as highlighted by the growth in Hackney, with growth evident from 2004 and

2005, but with one major blip during the Great Recession (Bloomberg News 2019). The

consequences of this make for an Olympic Games that, had little to no effect on housing at

best, and at worst, had a staggering effect on housing that harms the low-income residents of

the Olympic host communities.

Other important issues include homelessness. Homelessness remains high in the Newham

borough where housing has and is currently being built (Tsang 2018). In Newham, one in

every twenty-four people are homeless according to housing charity, Shelter (Hook 2018).

This gives the borough the highest homelessness rate in Britain (Hook 2018). Problems also

lie elsewhere, with a widening gap in median wages between the east London host boroughs

and the rest of London as of 2015, increasing from a 6.3% gap to a 7.3% gap (“Relighting the

Torch” 2017; Ponsford 2017). This is also reflected in the national government statistics, with

the gap in Newham expanding by four percentage points immediately after the Olympics and



- 25 -

remaining in the same range for the next three years. Such stagnation is also exhibited in

Hackney with Waltham Forest experiencing moderate closing of the gap to the London

median since 2012, with the only significant closing of the gap in Newham and Waltham

Forest occurring in the past two years. This lack of major closing of the gap explains why a

significant amount of the documents reflect an immediate concern – or rejoice – over the

housing price increase between 2012 and 2017.

When compared to general trends over the past seventeen years, the income falls into a

similar relationship as the housing of a return to the norm for most of the years after the

Olympics. The income gap in Newham has not contracted to a level under ten percent, even

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Gap

to

Lo

nd

on

Med

ian

Year

Median Housing Price Gap Between London and Host Boroughs


Figure 11 – The gap between the median housing price in the four main boroughs that are

home to the Olympic Park and the Greater London median housing price now from

December 2002 to August 2019. All statistics are from December of that year, except for

2019, which is as of August. The Games, from this context, show a return to pre-recession

levels, only slightly improving upon those levels within the past two years in Waltham

Forest and Newham. Hackney continues a trend of growth apparent before the Games and

Great Recession, and Tower Hamlets remains in the same ten percent range (Bloomberg

News 2019).



- 26 -

after the Games (Nomis). Waltham Forest has closed the gap since the Games, but only

reached its closest ever level to the London median this year.

This clash between rising housing costs and lack of growth to the pockets of average East

Londoners creates a vacuum for legacy organizers – an Olympic Village housing resident

problem. What type of people will be living in the new housing created as a legacy of the

Olympics, especially when even government officials are questioning the ability of the

London Legacy Development Corporation to build affordable housing and a significant

amount of housing is sold via market housing (White 2018; Parker 2019). The fill to that

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Per

cen

t G

ap C

om

par

ed t

o L

on

do

n M

edia

nLondon and Host Boroughs Median Income Gap


Figure 12 – The gap between the median weekly income in the four main boroughs that

are home to the Olympic Park and the Greater London median weekly income. All

statistics are from December of that year, except for 2019, which is as of August. While

economic reform was promised, significant change has only occurred since 2017.

Newham’s improvement is a return to pre-recession levels and Waltham Forest is in a

similar position. The lack of income movement in the years immediately after the Games

help to complicate the problem of growing housing costs (Nomis).



- 27 -

vacuum are those with business interests in projects in the park including tech entrepreneurs,

(Mallett 2019). Those with such interests are likely to be more well-off compared to their

borough counterparts due to having such connections. The fill is also reinforced by questions

being raised by researchers and government over the possibility of gentrification occurring,

leading to the relocation of wealth instead of the production that was implied by the bidding

process (Zimbalist 2016, 123; “Relighting the Torch” 2017).

The dynamic of increasing housing prices, stagnant median income, and these homes being

occupied implants the notion that gentrification is ongoing in east London with a movement

from the center. This is even reflected in some statements being made by current London

mayor, Sadiq Khan. In a speech at a conference on business innovation, he noted how

businesses, educational and cultural institutions were moving to the Olympic Park, leading

him to say that, “the centre of gravity in London is moving East,” and compared the change in

the Olympic Park to the building of the museum complexes like the London Science Museum

in wealthy South Kensington (International Olympic Committee 2017; Crerar 2017).

By stating that London is moving east, the center of attention and power is moving, but that

also means that those who possess a certain amount of power are also moving. This creates

the start of an accordion effect, causing those already in the East to be forced to move to other

locations for cheaper accommodations as the wealth is transferred from the center to the east

(Tsang 2018; Ponsford 2017; Evans 2016, 210).

In the meantime, the shift creates a Dickensian tale of two different neighborhoods. One

neighborhood that reflects the high level of homelessness in Newham with scores of people

sleeping in a shopping mall contrasted to a housing estate with codes of conduct,

commissioned graffiti, and a lack of homeless people (Wilding 2018). One neighborhood that

reflects the growing rift between east London and the city as a whole and another that has

wealthy people who can afford to live in the lavish new housing. As Darren Rodwell, a

member of the council for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, so poignantly

mention, “Look at the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. You’ve got the haves and the have nots and

they don’t intertwine. Stratford was supposed to be a legacy. But for whom? (Murray 2019).”

The answer to Rodwell’s question is a legacy for those who are not in the east London, but



- 28 -

those who are moving into east London. The Games did not raise the host communities up, it

brought in people who could fill in a quota. The legacy of the London 2012 Olympics is not to

boost a community, it is to build a new community. To create a new center of gravity that

does not reflect the borough it is in.

Governments’ Broad Brushes

In contrast to the elitism in the increase in housing prices and expansion of central London to

the east, the actions by government-affiliated entities incorporates several actions of interest.

Three main themes were apparent when coding the articles: government acting for the public

good, governing authorities in long-term infrastructure mode, and governing authorities

focusing on business interests.

Government acting for the public good, in this case, is government as a strong interest group

using its influence but emphasizing the public interest. This is best highlighted by the London

Assembly’s actions over the past few years. The Assembly has actively sought to investigate

the London Legacy Development Corporation – the mayoral agency responsible for the

legacy developments of the Olympics – over its lack of affordable housing construction

(White 2018). The London Assembly also has a regeneration committee that has been tasked

with investigating if the Games have fulfilled goals to narrow the gap between the host

communities, confirming that the creation of additional housing units was not on track in a

November 2017 report.

While coded as government interests, the actions of the government in this case exhibit

democratic notions because the London Assembly is doing its duty to provide oversight to the

developments of the community. The Assembly answers to the London public that it serves,

and by committing itself to this level of oversight, it is seen as doing what it should be doing

for the people they represent. By having this oversight, this makes pledges to make fifty

percent of future housing on the Olympic Park affordable, such as those provided by current

mayor, Sadiq Khan, logical and rational (Long 2018). It is the government seeing a problem

that has been created, asking questions, and committing itself to fix the issue such as investing

£10 million into future housing (Long 2018).



- 29 -

In contrast, however, there is some level of government authorities not seeking to act in the

public interest without being forced to. The former head of planning at the Olympic Delivery

Authority noted that legacy was not as important as the Games to the ODA (Burrows 2017).

While the ODA built items emphasizing legacy, they were required to legally build legacy

buildings like a school and sought to maneuver out of building it, exhibiting the conflicts

between the desire of the ODA to just build for the Olympics and the commitments of

politicians for a legacy that would directly help the community (Burrows 2017).

The actions of government in relation to its service to the public reflects a conflict of

direction. In the development stage of the Games, the emphasis on the community was not

there – as evident by the lack of enthusiasm from the ODA to create a legacy that had a direct

positive impact on the community. In contrast, there is a fervent push in the years after the

Olympics to see a legacy that emphasizes the community by having a committee tasked with

analyzing regeneration and by having the London Legacy Development Corporation be

questioned over its commitment. The trend appears that the closer tied the organization is to

the Olympic Park, such as the ODA or the LLDC, the less likely it is seeking to act in the

public interest. The closer tied the government interest is to facing a public vote, like the

members of the Housing and Regeneration Committee members, the more likely they must

act in the public interest and seek to ensure there is change for the hosting communities.

For the Olympic boroughs, it leaves a government divided in its service to the community and

only now addressing the issues that have been apparent for the past seven years. The mere fact

that there was a news article about Sadiq Khan increasing affordable housing and the London

Housing Committee asking questions about affordable housing confirms that there was a lack

of affordable housing in the Olympic Park – even though that was the type of housing needed

– and it is government-controlled entities like the LLDC under direction from the mayor that

are partly to blame for this.

Government emphasis on legacy is also noted by the overall commitment of authorities to

long-term infrastructure. If this sounds like a repeat of the tangibility question, it is. The

government perceives the wholesale reform of the Olympic Park and surrounding area as a

long-term project and the extent to which they perceive it as long term is fascinating. The



- 30 -

LLDC is still committing itself to building new housing to replace the social housing cleared

out for the Olympic Games (Ponsford 2017). The LLDC’s commitment to affordable housing

construction is not set on a yearly basis, but as a part of a ten-year aim, with housing analysts

stating that it will “take a generation” for the Olympic Park to reach full potential (White

2018).

The lack of housing that has been built in the Olympic Park, due to the amount of housing

committed to be built by government interests, allows for a mayor to make claims of

correcting and reaching an affordable housing target of fifty percent and still have the

opportunity to make some dent to the legacy. Yet, the important takeaway from the actions of

government is the comparison between what is occurring now and what was said in the

candidature file. The London candidate file stated that the Olympic Games were a necessity

because, “Without the Games, change would still happen, but it would be slower, more

incremental and less ambitious from a sporting, cultural and environmental perspective,” and

that the Olympic Park would provide a boost to affordable housing since it would “accelerate

the delivery of these homes,” (2004, 23-27).

As evident by the way that the housing projects have been discussed however, the pace of

housing construction – especially affordable housing – appears to be as incremental as what

the candidature file thought non-Olympic projects would be. The slow pace that has been

avoided by the games has been replaced with reform that is perceived to take a generation.

Yet, this long-term legacy approach conflicts with some government goals. The target goals

for the London Assembly over narrowing the gap between host communities and the rest of

London is set for next year. With the targets of government still relatively short, but the full

housing project legacy taking another ten years to bloom, the idea of the Olympics garnering

legitimacy due to its ability to fast track development takes a significant hit. For the host

communities, it leaves doubts over whether the Olympics were necessary to provide the boost

to the community that – while needed – does not occur after the Games. The argument that

the Games were necessary to help the community faster than it would have becomes an

excuse because the community is not receiving help fast enough. The affordable housing of

the Olympic legacy is still being built almost fifteen years since the bid. Not only is the legacy



- 31 -

not serving the community by creating an elitist bubble, but the legacy is not serving the

community by being slow in creating the features needed by the community its intended to

serve – affordable housing.

One area where there is service is government authorities focusing in business interests. This

can be highlighted by the substantial success of businesses moving to the Olympic Park

complexes. At the helm of this project is the London Legacy Development Corporation. The

LLDC changed some sections of the Olympic Park from housing to “Cultural and business

uses” which has led to the creation of a “ripple effect around the park, judging by the

residential-led schemes that developers are proposing,” (Mallett 2019). Yet, as noted in the

elitist analysis, without a substantial commitment from the LLDC in providing affordable

housing, there is little expectation of affordable housing to be created if developers know they

can cash in staggering amounts of money with small amounts of housing each year being

designated as affordable. This lack of commitment can be pointed at the lack of direction

given to the LLDC. The mandate given to the organization is to be, “Charged with recouping

as much of the games’ cost as possible through land sales on the Olympic Park, but also

briefed to pursue public good through legacy commitments such as low-cost housing,”

(Ponsford 2017). Achieving this balance has proven difficult for the corporation, with the

previous chairman resigning in November and told reporters that the corporation could not

achieve both of these goals (Ponsford 2017).

This acceptance of not being able to achieve both of the goals explains the contrasting reports

between business and housing interests. The housing interests have been emphatically thrown

to the side, while the business interests have been flourishing. The commitment of the LLDC

reflects a wider concept – the effort of the government to deliver a legacy for the host

community has been weak. By not having a stronger push to build infrastructure for the public

good early in the scheme, whether it is schools or affordable housing, it has left a precarious

situation for the community where it is not served by its new center. Like the student

preparing for their final exam with two days left, the government agencies have had to catch

up on everything that has occurred for an entire Olympic project in order to fix the park to

better serve the public. The procrastination, the short-term goal of garnering as much money



- 32 -

as possible, and the lack of care for the needs of the community leave a legacy that shows

little concern for the state of neighborhoods like Stratford. Instead, it depicts government at its

finest – fixing a problem now due to yesterday’s lack of care. The consequences from this for

the host communities are staggering. The community faces a long wait – something they were

promised would not occur in the candidature file – for the delivery of needs like affordable

housing on a mass scale.

Success of the Economic Interests

The flourishing business interests can be found throughout the Olympic Park’s landscape. The

Games have been lauded as a huge boon for real-estate parties, with companies like

Lendlease, the government-owned London and Continental Railway, and private equity firm

Delancey being able to effectively manage business locations in the park (Phillips 2017).

Major companies, both British and multinational, have moved to the properties managed by

the three including British Telecom’s sport division, Ford, London’s public transport

authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, along with two universities (Phillips 2017).

This action highlights the process of how the legacy of the Games does not serve the

community. Government and powerful economic interests hold control over the land

designated for businesses in the Olympic Park. Since the LLDC is focus more on trying to

reclaim revenue and not delivering on public goods, the LLDC emphasizes the government

and economic interests. The government and economic entities see their interests in bringing

major companies like Transport for London and BT to the East End, but the movement of

these companies is not the creation of new jobs to the communities. Instead, it is the

transplantation of companies that hold power and property in central London moving their

locations or putting new projects in the East End. This becomes a reflection of the moving

east mantra, with the consequences being the moving of power from the center to the east

without boosting the people who live in the east.

The economic interests served forms a significant overlap between government and business

interests, with entities owned by the government and not owned by the government selling

and buying space. This is evident by those who control these parties, such as how the head of

the ODA was the ex-CEO of Lendlease until 2011 (Zimbalist 2016, 121). With such an



- 33 -

entangling between government and economic interests, it is clear to see why the ODA

emphasized the Olympic oriented projects and had a lack of care for the legacy projects that

would help the community.

Some companies with business property interests dabble in the management of housing as

well with Delancey running a joint venture with Qatari Diar and affordable housing company

Triathlon to run the Olympic Village (Phillips 2017; Ponsford 2017). Yet, even that joint

venture, called Get Living, pushes for business dealings in order to occupy space such as

having a deal with Deloitte for forty apartments (Phillips 2017).

For a company like Delancey, heavy interaction with the Olympic Village provides the

opportunity to take from two pots – housing and business – and pool in money thanks to the

heavy push of business in the area and the high price of housing in the area. With the majority

of affordable housing originally pegged to a reduced cost from the market rate to rent or buy,

approximately half of the housing on the market directly, the complex was made to be an

ample place to make money for the three parties (Bernstock 2014, 120-121). For Delancey,

having a vested interest in both housing and business complexes encourages them to boost

profits in one to simultaneously boost the other.

In addition, with the LLDC’s commitment to public goods, like housing, falling by the

wayside, leading to a flourishing commercial legacy, companies like Delancey become even

more important because they ensure the legacy and gain money. The LLDC needs to make as

much money as possible and having developers that can sell housing and property like

Delancey ensures that they achieve one of the LLDC’s goals – the money making one. The

outcome for the host community is stark. Government interests entangle with powerful

financial interests to increase the likelihood of making money because they have to. Yet, the

commitment to making good on needs to the community is not met because they are in

opposition to the goal of making money. In order to make money, the business interests of the

park – which includes government-affiliated entities – must bring other businesses to the

Olympic Park. By bringing other businesses to the Olympic Park and making partnerships

with companies for housing, companies like Delancey, Lendlease, and LCR bring central

London to east London, bringing the companies, prices, and way of living as well.



- 34 -

Universal Discussions

While the content coded is well selective, it is still important to have a conversation over the

universal legacy discussions. Key to this discussion is the continuance of the games benefiting

the local community. It is an idea presented throughout the documents, whether in the

Olympic Delivery Authority’s final report, how an economic boom occurred in the 2012 host

boroughs, and how the legacy of the games brought together variety of interests “(Olympic

Delivery Authority” 2015; International Olympic Committee 2017). The message of the

Games impacting the community is consistent and necessary because that was the political

justification for the Games. If there was no mention of this, it would be an admittance of

failure by the government, government agencies, and LOCOG. A lot of the communal notions

are also incorporated when discussing the collaboration between public and private

institutions – a message that is consistent even in the candidature file’s housing plan (Murray

2019; “Olympic Delivery Authority” 2015; “Candidate File” 2004). The democratic notions

are also prevalent in government organizations participating in the oversight process, with

Figure 13 – Table of the four main features apparent in the London 2012 Post-Games

Legacy.



- 35 -

planning done by the ODA scrutinized by an independent body, and striving to be a, “model

public body” (“Olympic Delivery Authority” 2015).

This amount of commitment from government organizations like the ODA to show its

universal chops appears to be more a façade in contrast to the actions done in the community.

The fact that a lot of the communal notions are used to describe relations between public and

private institutions reflects the focus of the legacy – anything but the communities being

served. As evident throughout the discussion over elitist, government, and economic interests,

the host communities have not been served and the claims of the community actually

benefiting are insubstantial at best. The idea of the organizing parties bringing together a

variety of interests can be true. The question over whether they listened to all of them is the

question. The answer appears to be no because the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics does

not reflect a legacy that was made in part by the people who live there. The host communities

reap what the governing and economic interests sowed for them – a transplant community that

reflects central London, but not the east.

OTHER GAMES ANALYSIS

Olympics “Before” Legacy: The 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver

While the London Olympics are considered a hallmark for legacy, this does not mean that the

attributes of legacy intertwined with the Olympics only started to appear with the London

bidding process. This phenomenon also appears in the 2010 Winter Olympics, held in

Vancouver, Canada. Much like the London Olympics, the commitments set forth by

Vancouver emphasize the tangibility of the project. The structure of legacy from the Games is

very similar to London’s plan, especially from a housing perspective. The language of the

Olympic Village and the intention of the Games reaffirms the notion of the event being able

to transform communities. The Vancouver bid states that the location of the Olympic Village

in the South East False Creek community, “Will contribute significantly to revitalizing this

underdeveloped part of the city and will serve as a catalyst for this sustainable community

development,” (“The Sea to Sky Games” 2002). The usage of the words “catalyst” and

“revitalizing” are concepts justifying the relevance of the Games to the community and the



- 36 -

city’s plan. Much like the London candidature file, Vancouver using “catalyst” places the

notion that the Games will act as an accelerant to the change occurring to the host community,

implanting the idea that the Games will be able to propel this project in a way that other

infrastructure projects could not. Using a word like “revitalizing” in the candidature file not

only displays the that the organizers seek substantial change, but a complete overhaul of a

community, exactly like the premise of the London bid and why their bid was in East London.

The discussion over development is very much similar between Vancouver and London. The

London candidature file justified holding the Games in east London by calling the area, “ripe

for redevelopment,” (“Candidate File” 2004, 19). The Vancouver candidature file makes a

similar claim by stating that the Olympic Village’s location is, “underdeveloped” part of the

city (“The Sea to Sky Games” 2002). In both, the claim is that their location makes sense

because nothing of substantial importance is there in the opinion of the organizers.

There is also a substantial commitment to the urban impact this project will have. The

candidature file calls the location of the Vancouver Olympic Village, “the urban heart,” of

Vancouver, emphasizing how the project must recognize, “its very urban context,” and noting

how the plan includes creating an “urban waterfront walkway and bikeway” (“The Sea to Sky

Games” 2002). In addition, and much like most Olympics, there is a substantial commitment

to physical infrastructure. The Vancouver games sought to create “permanent housing,” and a

development, “with a mix of market and non-market housing, parks, community amenities,

offices and shops,” (“The Sea to Sky Games” 2002). To transform, to accelerate, to build:

these are the three key tangible traits placed at the forefront of the Vancouver Games.

Yet, much like the London Olympics, the selectivity of the legacy puts the breaks on the

tangible success. At the forefront of similarities are the government parties in control of

Olympic-related infrastructure being caught between two directives: the public good and the

economic interest. In London, it was the dilemma facing the London Legacy Development

Corporation over getting as much money back from the land and ensuring goods like

affordable housing. In Vancouver, the municipal government, when faced with a decision of

maintaining its commitment on 250 non-market social housing or turning half of the social

housing to market-rents to recoup costs from the Olympics, the municipal government chose



- 37 -

the latter (CBC News 2010). The target for the new housing was government related

occupations like police officers, nurses, and paramedics – a similar concept presented by the

London bid (CBC News 2010; “Candidate File” 2004, 207). Yet, the intended audience of the

housing, as compared to the original intent of low-income individuals, is stark.

The new housing is distinctly, “beyond the means of the city’s middle-class residents,” with

the parameters set by the government (Scherer 2011, 790). By having a requirement that

individuals living in the market-rate units can earn, “A maximum of five times the monthly

rent,” allows Vancouverites who are more well-off to live in the housing (CBC News 2010).

The current monthly prices for one-bedroom housing in the First Avenue Athletes Village

Housing Co-Operative – the social housing co-operative – is, at the minimum, CAN $1,530

(CHF BC). Yet, with the maximum allotment considered, this would allow people earning

approximately CAN $91,800 a year to live in the housing. In contrast, the median total

income of households in Vancouver as of the last Canadian census in 2015-2016 is CAN

$72,662, with economists using an estimate of CAN $75,400 as of July 2018 (Statistics

Canada 2017; Vikander 2018). The consequences from this for Vancouver is a legacy of

elitism much like what appears to be apparent in London’s case. While the aim of the Games

is to help the less fortunate, the legacy creates, or at the very least develops the climate for, a

rift between the well-off and the working class. Some living in the social housing have been

on the cusp or forced to move out due to the staggering costs of rent and utilities in the

Olympic Village (Vulliamy 2013).

The other dilemma facing Vancouver is rather unique compared to London: business and

government interests in a complex relationship leaving the community at the wayside due to

tangible commitments. As part of the tangible legacy of the Vancouver Games was to test and

create new technology in “renewable energy supply, water management, green building

design and urban agriculture,” (“The Sea to Sky Games” 2002). This choice of tangible

legacy had a direct cost on the community living in the Olympic Village. The low-income

residents of the Olympic Village could not afford to pay their heating and hot water bills

because they had to pay the provincial power company and Enerpro – an entity that “monitors

and bills head and hot water,” usage for the co-operative (Lee 2011). This, coupled with,



- 38 -

“deficiencies in state-of-the-art solar hot water and heat recovery systems,” forced the

municipal government to pay the bills of 160 residents in the Village (Lee 2011). The

consequences of this action leave taxpayers forced to contribute to monitoring costs, but also

helps to expand the coffers of Enerpro. Enerpro gets to act as the middleman, serving a legacy

duty of reducing consumption, but making sure that it gets its share for its services since the

co-operative chose them to monitor the usage. In contrast, the residents get left in the cold of

having an additional payment to their regular bill, adding more bureaucracy to the situation.

In the end, while the co-operative and Enerpro can use their actions as a point of tangible

legacy actively working, the community gets the short end of the stick as the payments add to

already shoe-string budgets. The legacy – a situation that reeks of a possible rift and a highly

selective future.

Olympics of the Future: Paris and Los Angeles’ Tangibility

The London Olympics can be considered as the first Olympics that had a significant focus on

legacy and also on how future bidding cities discuss legacy in the bidding stage (Horne 2016).

This has been greatly amplified by the push from the International Olympic Committee for

bids to be able to display how their candidature, “…fits their sporting, economic, social and

environmental long-term planning needs,” (International Olympic Committee 2019).

London’s candidature file exhibited this through the repetitive discussion over how the

Olympics fitted within the scope of the London Plan established for the city. In practice, the

emphasis on fitting bids within long-term planning needs is reflected in the host cities for the

2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics, Paris and Los Angeles. Both included sections dedicated

Figure 14 – A portion of Claire Vulliamy’s article on Vancouver’s housing legacy (2013),

with the coding used for this thesis applied to the document.



- 39 -

to explaining how the Games would be crucial to the long-term planning of their cities

(“Candidature File: Los Angeles” 2017, “Candidature File: Paris” 2017). Their attention to

wording also harkens to the language employed by the London committee in justifying the

games.

The concept of corralling legitimacy to the project by justifying that the Games will provide

significant change at a fast pace was crucial to the London bid and it is apparent in the Paris

and Los Angeles bids as well. In Los Angeles, the Games are considered to be a possible,

“…catalyst to help the City accelerate public infrastructure projects already in progress,”

providing the elixir to government planning (“Candidature File: Los Angeles” 2017). The

Games are also considered to be a force in helping, “…the City achieve development goals on

an accelerated timeline,” and noting that the event would be, “…a catalyst for connecting the

City of LA through community green spaces for hosting Games-time celebrations,”

(“Candidature File: Los Angeles” 2017). In Paris, the use of pace and significance of change

is even more amplified. Paris notes how its Games, “will also accelerate city projects such as

the possibility to swim in the river…” how the Games, “… will accelerate ambitious plans for

increasing active mobility,” and that the games, “accelerates actions towards a sustainable

city,” (“Candidature File: Paris” 2017). The use of acceleration continues when discussing the

benefits from bidding and hosting the games, noting how bidding is, “Accelerating the

construction of a new multipurpose arena in Paris, and that the games will, “accelerate the

evolution towards a sustainable society,” (“Candidature File: Paris” 2017).

As evident throughout the London candidature file, the messaging of the Games as an

accelerant to municipal change is key to justifying the need for the Games. The messaging

presented by London finds its carbon copy in Paris and Los Angeles. The argument of the

Games providing the boost is crucial because it explains how the Games makes sense through

a timing and constructing aspect. The long-term projects of cities will be become long-term

projects that can be soon realized by the communities they are intended to serve in the future.

Yet, as exhibited in the selective and universal section on London 2012, the question of how

fast the Games are compared to other projects is more a mystery than the fervent confirmation

that is depicted in the candidature files of London, Paris, and Los Angeles. The question of



- 40 -

how important hosting the Games is to development has to be raised, as the Paris candidature

file notes that a legacy from simply bidding for the 2012 Olympics – where they closely lost

to London – there was some legacy with the proposed village site being built through a public

and private partnership without Paris hosting the Games (“Candidature File: Paris” 2017).

While the Paris organizing committee noted this as an example of the Olympic Village

financing working wonders, the inclusion of it also raises curiosity over whether the Games

are even needed to create long lasting legacy for a public that will use it the most. If Paris was

able to create housing from bidding – housing that it sees a worthy enough to include in a

document to the International Olympic Committee – without hosting the Olympic Games, the

legitimacy of the Games as a vital accelerant to city development must be questioned.

While the language of accelerants and a commitment to leaving a legacy is a consistent theme

in Paris and Los Angeles compared to the London example, there are some differences in

direct audience between the three that makes Paris’ Olympics much more like London’s. At

the forefront of this is the idea that the 2024 Olympics, “Will transform neighbourhoods,

particularly in the Grand Paris Zone, creating new districts particularly attractive for residents

and companies through the delivery of accommodation facilities and transport infrastructure,”

(“Candidature File: Paris” 2017). The justification for the London Olympics is almost exactly

the same. To transform neighborhoods, the London Olympics intended to do such a thing by

transforming the Lower Lea Valley through the Olympics (“Candidate File” 2004, 19).

Creating a new district, the London Olympics did that through the creation of the Olympic

Park so much that it has its own postal code (Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park 2011). Making

sure that these new districts are attractive, the London Olympics discussed this by noting that

the Olympic Village had to be, “a new, desirable and sustainable residential community.”

(“Candidate File” 2004, 23). Having a target audience of residents and companies, the

London Olympics also sought this through the LLDC and partners having a dual commitment

to delivering public goods and ensuring profit by getting companies to move to the park.

The Paris Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games is clear in how London is reflected

in their games, with the co-chair of the Paris bid stating: “We looked at the success of the

games in London for sure, the fact that London succeeded in leaving a strong legacy, a



- 41 -

physical legacy in the east of London was very important for us,” (Alexander-Webber 2017).

Much like the concerns presented post-Olympics in London, community members also have

similar concerns, with one resident stating that, “When there is a lot of investment, landlords

will also take advantage by adding a bit, increasing the rents,” (Alexander-Webber 2017). As

evident by the stories in post-Olympics London, this phenomenon of increased rents is not

some isolated incident and will be key to determining the success of a Parisian games. Yet,

with a Games modelled so much on the physical legacy done in London, with a similar

public-private partnership for housing slated for the Olympic Village, avoiding substantial

rent increases will be as hard as a 400-meter race at a full sprint.

The Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games does fall under a slightly

different focus, especially in its Olympic Village housing plan. While the Paris games

emulates the London plan of using the village as a cornerstone of a regeneration plan, the Los

Angeles Olympic Village is integrated into the housing expansion on the campus of the

University of California, Los Angeles (“Candidature File: Los Angeles” 2017). The LA

committee notes that UCLA’s desire to create new housing units to meet future demand from

students falls into the requirements of the Olympic Village (“Candidature File: Los Angeles”

2017). This commitment to housing being created at the university displays a contrast

Figure 15 – The overall table between the three rules, regeneration, and the selective

attributes between London and the three other Olympics. All three apparent in London and

Vancouver, while Los Angeles’ regeneration is not as intrinsically part of the bid as Paris.



- 42 -

between the London and Paris model versus the Los Angeles model. London and Paris aim to

build housing for the Olympic Village and after it, it will be reflected as a contribution to

future planning. Los Angeles’s Olympic Village is going to take over infrastructure that is

already created and is intended to be created with or without the Olympic Games with a direct

community set to use it after. All of the plans are tangible, but the difference in the targeted

community – students versus the neighborhood public – makes the Los Angeles model unique

compared to its London and Paris counterparts. It is also different in that, by leaving most of

the responsibility to a public university in contrast to the public/private partnerships present in

London and Paris, the Los Angeles bid is more reliant on government-backed interests in its

housing from the onset compared to the two European hosts.

CONCLUSION

The London Olympic Games legacy is one that is multi-faceted. The Games does desire to

remake its host communities through economic and housing reform that benefits local people.

This is reflected by the substantial commitment to a tangible legacy throughout the London

Olympics candidature file. Yet, its housing legacy does not appear to adequately serve the

intended community. Instead, the legacy produces a selective legacy based on the texts. In the

best scenario, the Games have no effect on the communities. In the worst-case scenario, the

Games produce a negative effect on the communities. The desire to make the Games a

catalyst for reform of east London is crucial to the notion of the London legacy (Evans 2016,

62). Some even argue that London was going to continue to move east no matter if the Games

were or were not held in London (Evans 2016, 62). Yet, the Games are now key to the legacy

and of a shift in power, influence, and movement that has occured in east London since 2012.

The consequences are a legacy of the Olympics that does not wholly benefit impoverished

people in the communities of the host boroughs, especially those in the London Borough of

Newham. Instead, it leaves a new place for those moving east, with their power and influence

to act – a symbol for gentrification.

One of the most poignant quotes during my research was a comment made by an academic

focused on urban development, noting that, “Gentrification is the only way to bring change in

cities, but we live in a democracy. We have to be seen to be letting people know what we are



- 43 -

doing, and planning” (Evans 2016, 111). While that comment was on the importance of the

legacy masterplan framework – the overall document concept of legacy – it carries a great

consequence to this thesis. The consequence that changes evident during the London Games

were inevitable because change in itself relies upon gentrification. The idea that regeneration

and gentrification are intrinsically tied to each other leaves staggering consequences to host

communities. Communities are promised change that will lift them up, but that change is not

even directed at them, it is directed at an entirely new group. That change can be found not

only through the increasing housing costs, but by the lack of emphasis on delivering public

goods that directly help the community from organizing and governmental authorities.

The trends of regeneration, the three rules justification for change, and the selectivity of

legacies that are apparent in London are just as apparent in the Vancouver Games, which

explains why the two are often used as comparisons between each other, whether in Penny

Bernstock’s Olympic Housing or in Jay Scheer’s piece on Vancouver’s housing legacy. The

traits apparent in London are also apparent in the Parisian Games, right down to the emphasis

on regeneration. This makes the chance of change that does not target those living in the

community strong after the 2024 Games. The Los Angeles games has the three rules

justification, but regeneration is not as tied to the Games concept.

In the cases of London, Vancouver, and Paris, the message is clear as day, change has

consequences, and not all are as glowing as they are intended to be. Introducing legacy is

required for cities to justify hosting the Games, but that same justification can also over

promise and fail to deliver. Governments must be seen as contributing to the public good

since they are spending staggering amounts of money on short-term sporting event. Yet, that

promise to deliver public goods falls at the wayside after the Games. It is key for governments

to understand that spending money on hosting the Games is a lose situation. Either you spend

money for the Games, justify through legacy and fail to deliver or you spend money just for

the sake of the Games.

A reduction of expenditure is necessary, and therefore a greater use of already intended

projects with direct outcomes. Instead of Games reflecting a general city plan, Games that

have legacies directly corresponding to group’s future intentions. This is reflected especially



- 44 -

in the Los Angeles bid’s Olympic Village housing being incorporated with UCLA’s

expansion of housing. The International Olympic Committee also knows this is necessary for

its future sustainability, with a growing push for bids to use existing facilities (Gibson 2014).

Even with the cost situation, the legacy concept has a more unique importance for the

American sporting landscape, where construction of stadiums is often coupled with

community overhauls. One of the venues for the Los Angeles 2028 Games is already

contributing to gentrification, and though that isn’t intrinsically tied to the bid, it leaves

similar consequences (Jennings 2019).

While that stadium is privately funded, the habit of American sports stadiums being publicly

funded with the same intention of overhaul is also apparent. The $400 million redevelopment

plan in Pawtucket, Rhode Island perfectly reflects this. Centered around a minor league soccer

stadium, it is being developed through a public-private partnership, seen as revitalizing the

area, will include a hotel, office space, and “market-rate and workforce housing,” and public

money will be used even though government officials claim that the project, “…Will pay for

itself,” (Sherman 2019). All of these concepts are evident in the London Olympics, but the

likelihood that the project will pay for itself, or that the workforce housing that will be created

will be affordable for average working people must be highly questioned. Whether it is the

Olympics or a minor league sports stadium, the trap is the same, and it is the communities that

are left on the wayside.



- 45 -

APPENDICES



- 46 -

Appendix A – List of Sources Used for London Post-Games Analysis

Alexander-Webber, Miranda. “Paris Olympics Aims to Regenerate Poor, Northeastern Suburbs.”

Reuters, August 1, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-paris-regeneration-

idUSKBN1AH4RY.

Burrows, Tim. “Legacy, What Legacy? Five Years on the London Olympic Park Battle Still

Rages.” The Guardian, July 27, 2017, sec. Cities.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/27/london-olympic-park-success-five-years-

depends.

Crerar, Pippa. “East London Still Racing Ahead as Olympic Boom Creates 110,000 Jobs.” Evening

Standard, October 9, 2017. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-london-still-racing-

ahead-as-olympic-boom-creates-110000-jobs-a3653881.html.

International Olympic Committee. “Mayor Reveals Olympic Host Boroughs as London’s Fastest-

Growing Area,” October 11, 2017. https://www.olympic.org/news/mayor-reveals-olympic-

host-boroughs-as-london-s-fastest-growing-area.

Ivey, Prudence. “East London’s Olympic House Prices Race Ahead of the Capital.” Homes and

Property, August 4, 2017. http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/the-world-

athletics-championships-2017-are-underway-in-east-london-but-home-owners-in-the-

olympic-a112666.html.

Long, Rhiannon. “Mayor Pledges 50 per Cent of Future Housing Built on Olympic Park Will Be

Affordable.” Newham Recorder, 2018. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/mayor-of-

london-doubles-affordable-housing-target-on-olympic-park-1-5685460.

Mallett, Lee. “The Turbo-Charged Olympic Park Regeneration Is Creating an Exciting New East

London District.” Homes and Property, April 23, 2019.

https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/living-at-olympic-

park-east-bank-district-to-bring-bbc-schools-and-hundreds-of-new-flats-to-east-

a129776.html.

Murray, Peter. “Huge London Regeneration Projects Unveiled at MIPIM, Europe’s Top Property

Show.” Homes and Property, March 12, 2019.

https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/london-councils-are-building-homes-

again-huge-regeneration-projects-and-housing-plans-unveiled-at-a128636.html.

“Olympic Delivery Authority 2006-2014 – Final Report” Department for Culture, Media, and

Sport. 2015.

O’Sullivan, Feargus. “The Olympics Won’t Improve Life in Your City.” CityLab, 2017.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/londons-olympics-didnt-really-help-east-

london/546347/.

Parker, Laura. “How London Became the Center of the World.” National Geographic, 2019.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/london-population-city-

planning/.

Phillips, Mike. “Five Years On, London’s Olympic Real Estate Legacy Is A Clear Winner.”

Forbes, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/07/25/five-years-on-londons-

olympic-real-estate-legacy-is-a-clear-winner/.

Ponsford, Matthew. “Five Years after London Olympics, Games’ Legacy Is Off-Track for Locals.”

Reuters, July 27, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-olympics-housing-

idUSKBN1AB32H.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-paris-regeneration-idUSKBN1AH4RY


https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/27/london-olympic-park-success-five-years-depends


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-london-still-racing-ahead-as-olympic-boom-creates-110000-jobs-a3653881.html


https://www.olympic.org/news/mayor-reveals-olympic-host-boroughs-as-london-s-fastest-growing-area

https://www.olympic.org/news/mayor-reveals-olympic-host-boroughs-as-london-s-fastest-growing-area

http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/the-world-athletics-championships-2017-are-underway-in-east-london-but-home-owners-in-the-olympic-a112666.html



https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/mayor-of-london-doubles-affordable-housing-target-on-olympic-park-1-5685460


https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/living-at-olympic-park-east-bank-district-to-bring-bbc-schools-and-hundreds-of-new-flats-to-east-a129776.html



https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/london-councils-are-building-homes-again-huge-regeneration-projects-and-housing-plans-unveiled-at-a128636.html


https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/londons-olympics-didnt-really-help-east-london/546347/


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/london-population-city-planning/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/07/25/five-years-on-londons-olympic-real-estate-legacy-is-a-clear-winner/


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-olympics-housing-idUSKBN1AB32H




- 47 -

Powell, Tom. “Olympic Park Left Covered in Rubbish as Travellers Turn It into Dump.” Evening

Standard, September 13, 2017. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/olympic-park-left-

covered-in-rubbish-as-travellers-turn-it-into-illegal-dump-a3634101.html.

“Relighting the Torch: Securing the Olympic Legacy” London Assembly Regeneration

Committee. 2017.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/convergence_short_report_final.pdf

Tsang, Amie. “In London, Olympic Park’s Legacy Is Sustainability.” The New York Times,

October 9, 2018, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/business/london-

olympic-park.html.

Wainwright, Oliver. “The River London Forgot: How the Lea Is Being Reborn.” The Guardian,

April 5, 2017, sec. Art and design.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/05/the-river-london-forgot-lea-valley-

reborn-leaway-path.

White, Anna. “Olympic Park Developer under Fire for Failing to Meet Target.” Homes and

Property, June 5, 2018. https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/olympic-park-

developer-under-fire-for-failing-to-meet-affordable-homes-targets-a121131.html.

Wilding, Mark. “How the London Olympics Have Damaged the Local Area.” Vice (blog), July 2,

2018. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk8nv/how-the-london-olympics-have-damaged-

the-local-area.

Zimbalist, Andrew. Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the

World Cup. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2016. 118-125.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/olympic-park-left-covered-in-rubbish-as-travellers-turn-it-into-illegal-dump-a3634101.html



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/business/london-olympic-park.html


https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/05/the-river-london-forgot-lea-valley-reborn-leaway-path


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk8nv/how-the-london-olympics-have-damaged-the-local-area




- 48 -

REFERENCES

Alexander-Webber, Miranda. “Paris Olympics Aims to Regenerate Poor, Northeastern Suburbs.”

Reuters, August 1, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympics-paris-regeneration-

idUSKBN1AH4RY.

Baade, Robert A., and Victor A. Matheson. "Going for the Gold: The Economics of the Olympics."

The Journal of Economic Perspectives 30, no. 2 (2016): 201-18.

www.jstor.org/stable/43783713.

Bernstock, Penny. Olympic Housing: A Critical Review of London 2012’s Legacy. Oxford:

Routledge, 2014

Bloomberg News. “London Property Prices,” 2019.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/property-prices/london/.

Burrows, Tim. “Legacy, What Legacy? Five Years on the London Olympic Park Battle Still

Rages.” The Guardian, July 27, 2017, sec. Cities.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/27/london-olympic-park-success-five-years-

depends.

CBC News. “Vancouver Cuts Olympic Village Social Housing.” Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation, 2010. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cuts-

olympic-village-social-housing-1.882070.

"Candidate File - London 2012." The National Archives. 2004. Archived January 7, 2008.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107210715/http://www.london2012.com/ne

ws/publications/candidate-file.php.

“Candidature File : Los Angeles Candidate City Olympic Games 2024.” Los Angeles Candidate

City Olympic Games 2024. 2017.

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171668/candidature-file-los-angeles-

candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

“Candidature File : Paris Candidate City Olympic Games 2024” Paris Candidate City Olympic

Games 2024. 2017. https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171681/candidature-

file-paris-candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

“Case Studies.” Writing@CSU. Colorado State University. 2019.

https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=60

CHF BC. “Co-Op,” https://www.chf.bc.ca/find-co-op/co-op/.

Crerar, Pippa. “East London Still Racing Ahead as Olympic Boom Creates 110,000 Jobs.” Evening

Standard, October 9, 2017. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-london-still-racing-

ahead-as-olympic-boom-creates-110000-jobs-a3653881.html.

Evans, Gillian. London’s Olympic Legacy: The Inside Track. London. Palgrave Macmillan. 2016.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12,

no. 2 (April 2006): 219–45. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.

Gibson, Owen. “Olympic Games Bidding to Be Made Cheaper and Easier.” The Guardian,

November 18, 2014, sec. Sport. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/18/olympic-

games-bidding-cheaper.

Hook, Joseph. “Newham Has the Highest Rate of Homelessness in England.” Newham Recorder,

2018. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/newham-has-the-highest-number-of-

homeless-people-in-england-1-5791719.

Horne, John. “Sports Mega-Events: Three Sites of Contemporary Political Contestation.” Sports in

Society, 2016.



http://www.jstor.org/stable/43783713



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cuts-olympic-village-social-housing-1.882070

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cuts-olympic-village-social-housing-1.882070

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107210715/http:/www.london2012.com/news/publications/candidate-file.php

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107210715/http:/www.london2012.com/news/publications/candidate-file.php

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171668/candidature-file-los-angeles-candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171668/candidature-file-los-angeles-candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171681/candidature-file-paris-candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/171681/candidature-file-paris-candidate-city-olympic-games-2024

https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=60

https://www.chf.bc.ca/find-co-op/co-op/



https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/18/olympic-games-bidding-cheaper

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/18/olympic-games-bidding-cheaper

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/newham-has-the-highest-number-of-homeless-people-in-england-1-5791719

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/newham-has-the-highest-number-of-homeless-people-in-england-1-5791719



- 49 -

Horne, John, and Garry Whannel. Understanding the Olympics. Second edition. London; New

York, NY: Routledge, 2016.

International Olympic Committee. “Mayor Reveals Olympic Host Boroughs as London’s Fastest-

Growing Area,” October 11, 2017. https://www.olympic.org/news/mayor-reveals-olympic-

host-boroughs-as-london-s-fastest-growing-area.

International Olympic Committee. “Olympic Agenda 2020 - Strategic Roadmap for the Olympic

Movement,” August 7, 2019. https://www.olympic.org/olympic-agenda-2020.

Ivey, Prudence. “East London’s Olympic House Prices Race Ahead of the Capital.” Homes and

Property, August 4, 2017. http://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/the-world-

athletics-championships-2017-are-underway-in-east-london-but-home-owners-in-the-

olympic-a112666.html.

Jennings, Angel. “One of California’s Last Black Enclaves Threatened by Inglewood’s Stadium

Deal.” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2019. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-

inglewood-gentrification-rent-crenshaw-rams-stadium-20190410-htmlstory.html.

Lee, Jeff. “City to Pay Hot Water, Heating Bills for 160 Olympic Village Residents.” Vancouver

Sun, 2011.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/City+water+heating+bills+Olympic+Village+residents/58

31442/story.html.

Lindsay, Ian. Living with London’s Olympics: An Ethnography. New York. Palgrave Macmillan.

2014

Long, Rhiannon. “Mayor Pledges 50 per Cent of Future Housing Built on Olympic Park Will Be

Affordable.” Newham Recorder, 2018. https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/mayor-of-

london-doubles-affordable-housing-target-on-olympic-park-1-5685460.

Mallett, Lee. “The Turbo-Charged Olympic Park Regeneration Is Creating an Exciting New East

London District.” Homes and Property, April 23, 2019.

https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/buying/new-homes/living-at-olympic-

park-east-bank-district-to-bring-bbc-schools-and-hundreds-of-new-flats-to-east-

a129776.html.

Matas, Robert. “B.C. Government Releases Details of Olympics Costs.” The Globe and Mail,

2010. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-government-releases-

details-of-olympics-costs/article1386894/.

Miles, Matthew B., A. M. Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. “Fundamentals of Qualitative Data

Analysis.” In Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, Third edition., 69–104.

Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2014.

Murray, Peter. “Huge London Regeneration Projects Unveiled at MIPIM, Europe’s Top Property

Show.” Homes and Property, March 12, 2019.

https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/london-councils-are-building-homes-

again-huge-regeneration-projects-and-housing-plans-unveiled-at-a128636.html.

Nomis. “Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings – Resident Analysis.”

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/datasets/asher

“Olympic Delivery Authority 2006-2014 – Final Report” Department for Culture, Media, and

Sport. 2015.

Parker, Laura. “How London Became the Center of the World.” National Geographic, 2019.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/urban-expeditions/london-population-city-

planning/.

https://www.olympic.org/olympic-agenda-2020




https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-inglewood-gentrification-rent-crenshaw-rams-stadium-20190410-htmlstory.html

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-inglewood-gentrification-rent-crenshaw-rams-stadium-20190410-htmlstory.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/City+water+heating+bills+Olympic+Village+residents/5831442/story.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/City+water+heating+bills+Olympic+Village+residents/5831442/story.html












- 50 -

Phillips, Mike. “Five Years On, London’s Olympic Real Estate Legacy Is A Clear Winner.”

Forbes, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/07/25/five-years-on-londons-

olympic-real-estate-legacy-is-a-clear-winner/.

Ponsford, Matthew. “Five Years after London Olympics, Games’ Legacy Is Off-Track for Locals.”

Reuters, July 27, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-olympics-housing-

idUSKBN1AB32H.

Poynter, Gavin. “The Evolution of the Olympic and Paralympic Games 1948-2012.” In Olympic

Cities; 2012 and the Remaking of London, edited by Poynter, Gavin and Iain MacRury, 23-

41. New York: Routledge, 2016.

Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. “Royal Mail Introduces New E20 Postcode for the Olympic Park,”

2011. https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/media/press-releases/royal-mail-

introduces-new-e20-postcode-for-the-olympic-park.

“Relighting the Torch: Securing the Olympic Legacy” London Assembly Regeneration

Committee. 2017.


Rogers, Simon. “London Olympics 2012: Where Does the Money Come from - and Where’s It

Being Spent?” The Guardian, July 26, 2012.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/2012/jul/26/london-2012-olympics-money.

Scherer, Jay. “Olympic Villages and Large-Scale Urban Development: Crises of Capitalism,

Deficits of Democracy?” Sociology 45, no. 5 (October 2011): 782–97.

doi:10.1177/0038038511413433.

Sherman, Eli. “Soccer Stadium Part of $400M Redevelopment Plan for Pawtucket.” WPRI.com,

December 2, 2019. https://www.wpri.com/business-news/soccer-stadium-part-of-400m-

redevelopment-plan-for-pawtucket/.

Statistics Canada. “Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census - Census Metropolitan Area of

Vancouver.” Government of Canada, February 8, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-CMA-

Eng.cfm?TOPIC=6&LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=933.

Tomlinson, Alan. “Olympic Legacies: Recurrent Rhetoric and Harsh Realities.” Contemporary

Social Science 9, no. 2. 137-158. 2014.

“The Sea to Sky Games = Les Jeux Entre Mer Et Ciel / Vancouver 2010 Candidate City, Ville

Candidate.” Vancouver 2010 Candidate City. 2002.

https://library.olympic.org/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/47102/the-sea-to-sky-games-les-jeux-

entre-mer-et-ciel-vancouver-2010-candidate-city-ville-candidate

Tsang, Amie. “In London, Olympic Park’s Legacy Is Sustainability.” The New York Times,

October 9, 2018, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/business/london-

olympic-park.html.

Vikander, Tessa. “Owning a House in Vancouver Costs the Average Person 120 per Cent of Their

Income, Says RBC.” Toronto Star, 2018.

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/07/03/owning-a-house-in-vancouver-costs-the-

average-person-120-per-cent-of-their-income-says-rbc.html.

Vulliamy, Claire. “Last Low-Income Tenants at Olympic Village Are Being ‘Forced Out.’” The

Mainlander (blog), March 21, 2013. http://themainlander.com/2013/03/21/last-low-income-

tenants-at-olympic-village-are-being-forced-out/.





https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/media/press-releases/royal-mail-introduces-new-e20-postcode-for-the-olympic-park

https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/media/press-releases/royal-mail-introduces-new-e20-postcode-for-the-olympic-park


https://doi-org.bryant.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0038038511413433

https://www.wpri.com/business-news/soccer-stadium-part-of-400m-redevelopment-plan-for-pawtucket/

https://www.wpri.com/business-news/soccer-stadium-part-of-400m-redevelopment-plan-for-pawtucket/

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-CMA-Eng.cfm?TOPIC=6&LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=933





https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/07/03/owning-a-house-in-vancouver-costs-the-average-person-120-per-cent-of-their-income-says-rbc.html

https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/2018/07/03/owning-a-house-in-vancouver-costs-the-average-person-120-per-cent-of-their-income-says-rbc.html

http://themainlander.com/2013/03/21/last-low-income-tenants-at-olympic-village-are-being-forced-out/

http://themainlander.com/2013/03/21/last-low-income-tenants-at-olympic-village-are-being-forced-out/



- 51 -

Weber-Newth, Francesca. “Landscapes of London 2012: ‘AdiZones’ and the Production of

(Corporate) Olympic Space,” Contemporary Social Science. 9, no. 2. 227-241. 2014.

White, Anna. “Olympic Park Developer under Fire for Failing to Meet Target.” Homes and

Property, June 5, 2018. https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/property-news/olympic-park-

developer-under-fire-for-failing-to-meet-affordable-homes-targets-a121131.html.

Wilding, Mark. “How the London Olympics Have Damaged the Local Area.” Vice (blog), July 2,

2018. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbk8nv/how-the-london-olympics-have-damaged-

the-local-area.

Zimbalist, Andrew. Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the

World Cup. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2016.

Zirin, Dave. Brazil's Dance with the Devil: The World Cup, the Olympics, and the Fight for

Democracy. Chicago: Haymarket, 2016.

WORKS CONSULTED

Barbassa, Juliana. Dancing with the Devil in the City of God: Rio de Janeiro and the Olympic

Dream. New York: Touchstone, 2015.

Boyle, Philip, and Kevin D. Haggerty. “Civil Cities and Urban Governance: Regulating Disorder

for the Vancouver Winter Olympics.” Urban Studies 48, no. 15 (November 2011): 3185–

3201. doi:10.1177/0042098011422391.

Kennelly, Jacqueline. “‘You’re Making Our City Look Bad’: Olympic Security, Neoliberal

Urbanization, and Homeless Youth.” Ethnography 16, no. 1 (March 2015): 3–24.

doi:10.1177/1466138113513526.

Hiller, Harry H., and Richard A. Wanner. “Public Opinion in Olympic Cities: From Bidding to

Retrospection.” Urban Affairs Review 54, no. 5 (September 2018): 962–93.

doi:10.1177/1078087416684036.

O’Sullivan, Feargus. “The Olympics Won’t Improve Life in Your City.” CityLab, 2017.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/londons-olympics-didnt-really-help-east-

london/546347/.

Powell, Tom. “Olympic Park Left Covered in Rubbish as Travellers Turn It into Dump.” Evening

Standard, September 13, 2017. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/olympic-park-left-

covered-in-rubbish-as-travellers-turn-it-into-illegal-dump-a3634101.html.

Wainwright, Oliver. “The River London Forgot: How the Lea Is Being Reborn.” The Guardian,

April 5, 2017, sec. Art and design.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/05/the-river-london-forgot-lea-valley-

reborn-leaway-path.

Zucker, Donna M., “How to Do Case Study Research.” Teaching Research Methods in the Social

Sciences. 2. (2009).

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_faculty_p

ubs;How









https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_faculty_pubs;How

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=nursing_faculty_pubs;How

london moves east: how the olympics impacts host communities

Documents